Best Textbook for Quantum Mechanics

[student1938]

I am taking a quantum mechanics course in my third year and find that the book by Brehm and Mullin is not at all very good. Are there any books that are known to be good and useful for studying Quantum Mechanics?

 

[RedX]

Well I'm self-studying quantum mechanics with The Feynman Lectures in Physics, volume III. I think it's a good book, but it might be too easy for you if you're a physics student (I'm a mechanical engineering student so it's perfect for me), so then perhaps Landau's Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics book might be more at your level. I think if you haven't looked at The Feynman Lectures, you really ought to. The way he teaches it, by showing you the electron double slit experiment, really gets at the heart of quantum mechanics. Most books begin with Schrodinger's equation, but that doesn't offer any physical insight into the heart of quantum mechanics and restricts yourself to the cooridinate representation. I mean when you 1st learn math you learn the integers, and then you go on to learn rationals and irrationals. I think it's appropriate to begin learning systems which can be described with a finite number of base states, and then go on to continuous base states. Anyway that's just my opinion.

 

[Stingray]

Liboff is good for the usual intro QM stuff.

Cohen-Tannoudji (sp?) et al. is the standard for a more thorough treatment.

There are more interesting theoretical books out there, but I think this is what you're looking for.

A very good book of interesting solved problems (not the usual homework garbage) that shows you how the ideas are actually used is Flugge's "Practical Quantum Mechanics"

 

[meteor]

I have "Quantum mechanics" of Schaum's Outlines. The explanations are direct and quite clear, and there are a lot of worked exercises
It's also very cheap. There's no QFT though

 

[student1938]

Griffith' s text

How about the Griffiths text..is that any good? I didn' t find his E&M book good at all so if the QM book is like that, then it might not be worth it... for me anyhow!

 

[Stingray]

I haven't read any of Griffiths' books in detail, but I didn't like what I've seen of his QM book. I tend to prefer more mathematically rigorous books than most people, so I don't know if my opinion is relevant to you. What didn't you like about his EM book?

 

[student1938]

I found that the EM book was not too good either...lot of stuff left incomplete for my liking. Some people would have been able to fill in the missing steps...I was able to do that for some of them but not for all of them. I too like books that have more mathematics than perhaps necessary...helps me see things more clearer!

 

[GRQC]

Cohen-Tannoudji et al. is a good upper division / intro graduate level text (I learned from it, and used it for the last quantum class I taught). The good thing is that uses a modern approach, Dirac Notation, group theory, etc... I tend to shy away from adopting texts that want to teach quantum without the proper notation (Liboff is guilty of this).

Another good undergraduate text is by Townsend ("A Modern Approach To Quantum Mechanics"). He also chooses to go with Dirac Notation from the first page, but does so via angular momentum (which can be confusing if it's the first introduction to QM). However, it's a excellent upper div. text.

 

[venkat]

if you don't like to figure out on your own things that are left undone, then griffith is not at all good for you! because almost the entire book is work out the problems yourself type!

but the book is a damn good book, since it explains so many things correctly and clearly !

 

[chroot]

I'll throw in my vote for Griffiths. Liboff is also good, but not as fun to read.

- Warren

 

[Steven S]

I think Shankar's book is the best. It is larger and has more topics than Griffiths and I think the exposition is just as good. Plus it introduces path integrals.

 

[suyver]

Slightly more advanced, but very thourough, is J. J. Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Mechanics". I like this book a lot.

 

[1100f]

I like Schiff's book. A little old but very good

 

[vanesch]

QM books...

3 books come to mind:
As people said, Cohen-Tannoudji is a kind of bible and reads very easily. In fact, the main problem I have with it is that it reads too easily ! In fact, it is too verbose, and that's why the two volumes are over 1500 pages.

I learned QM from an old book which is also, in my mind, a good introduction: Messiah. It is now available as a cheap Dover edition.

The best book I know about QM, but which is not an introduction, is, as somebody already said: Sakurai. If you only study QM for QM sake, there's a lot of non-essential material in it, but in fact it is a perfect preparation for QFT.
In fact, I'm leading a study group for this book right now, and you can find some material (solutions to exercises for instance) on a web page I set up for the purpose:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/patrick.vanesch/NRQM_main_page.html

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[suyver]

Originally posted by vanesch
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/patrick.vanesch/NRQM_main_page.html

That is a really great site! Thanks for sharing it with us (keep up the good work!).

Cheers,
Freek Suyver.

 

[spdf13]

I've always liked Griffiths best, followed by Shankar. These books do leave out some higher level physics, but on the most part they explain the material very well.

 

[RedX]

waaaaahh

Am I the only one who likes the Feynman Lectures in Physics Vol 3 Quantum Mechanics? That's the only book I know. Is Griffith's or Sakurai's better?

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by RedX
Am I the only one who likes the Feynman Lectures in Physics Vol 3 Quantum Mechanics? That's the only book I know. Is Griffith's or Sakurai's better?

Feynman's Vol III is pretty odd. It presents everything in the reverse manner as all other texts, and doesn't really have, IMO, enough detail to really learn how to solve any problems. His treatment is entertaining, but not very useful.

- Warren

 

[RedX]

By reverse manner I'm assuming you don't mean introducing the Dirac notation first, because from what I've gathered from everyone here that's the proper way to do things. I like how he doesn't introduce the Schrodinger equation until chapter 16 and works with simpler 2-state systems before chapter 16. I know many QM books choose the Schrodinger equation as their starting point. It's true in chapter 5 he deals with a spin 1 particle, but that chapter gave physical motivation for one of the fundamental quantum rules, that: <psi2|psi1>=Sum(<psi2|j><j|psi1>). Anyway, I am wondering what exactly is out of order. I kind of feel bad because I've been recommending the Feynman Lectures to people thinking that it is not only entertaining but good.

There is a lack of problems and you can purchase a book of problems which goes with the Feynman lectures - those problems came from Feynman himself.

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by RedX
Am I the only one who likes the Feynman Lectures in Physics Vol 3 Quantum Mechanics? That's the only book I know. Is Griffith's or Sakurai's better?

The problem I have with the Feynman lectures is that they make awful introductory texts. While they're very complete and well-written, I've found they're more the type of books that you use to review prior knowledge, and reinforce it better.

That is -- they work best if you're already familiar with the topics and are seeking a more thorough treatment.

 

[RedX]

Originally posted by GRQC
The problem I have with the Feynman lectures is that they make awful introductory texts. While they're very complete and well-written, I've found they're more the type of books that you use to review prior knowledge, and reinforce it better.

That is -- they work best if you're already familiar with the topics and are seeking a more thorough treatment.

Well, I just checked out Shankar's book, because it was the only one that I could find at the library that was recommended by the people here. And glancing through it, it lookes pretty frightening. Feynman was a little easier on the mathematics.

Well, for better or worse, I began with Feynman. I feel weird because I'm in a position to talk about EPR and symmetries and a lot of wonderful stuff, but I can't talk about it in depth because Feynman didn't bother that much with the mathematics.

 

[Mike H]

The first chapter of Shankar is his crash course in the mathematics that you'll need to actually work your way through the rest of his text. If you intend to get anything out of his book, you will have to work your way through the first chapter, even if it's nothing more than a quick review to familiarize yourself with his conventions and such. The next two chapters review classical mechanics and the problems that arose to the development of quantum mechanics.

So don't be too terribly turned away by the math in the latter pages of his book. He will prepare you from the get-go if you let him.

 

[Dr Transport]

To this day I still have not found a QM book that I really care for. Messiah, Shiff, Cohen-Tannoudji and Sakurai all have their strong points. Messiah and Shiff are dated, Sakurai is modern and I hate the way Cohen-Tannoudji is laid out with short chapters and a butt-load of appendicies. I used Liboff as a returning grad student for a course I was required to take, after 6 semesters of Modern Physics and QM previously, it was not a challenge. The professor who taught out of Cohen-Tannoudji didn't teach me anything either.

Sakurai is for the budding particle physicist with all of the group theoretical material in there, and as a Solid State guy I found I didn't need all of that material.

The book I do not hear anything about is by Slater, it is laid out well, cover the first half of the book and you have a decent background. Do the last half of the book and you can do Solid State, Atomic and Molecular and get into Nuclear Physics.

If I had to choose, I'd take Messaih, dated as it is, you get a feeling for the structure of QM and how it is applied, Shiff is a close second.

 

[Ilja]

Originally posted by RedX
Am I the only one who likes the Feynman Lectures in Physics Vol 3 Quantum Mechanics?

No.

 

[Cyclotron Boy]

Nobody mentioned...

Nobody mentioned what to do beyond Sakuri or Griffiths. The next textbook in a serious investigation of Quantum Mechanics beyond the undergraduate level has got to be Merzbacher. This text really unifies the idea of solutions to differential equations as physical phenomena. It also provides the link from classical scattering theory presented in Griffiths and modern phenomenological, experimental study. And you you will never look at differential equations the same again after a rigorous treatment of the hypergeometric function and the associated non-integer order bessel functions. Also covers relativistic quantum mechanics, especially as it leads into modern quantum field theory, quite well.

Eugen Merzbacher, Quantum Mechanics, Third Edition, Wiley, 1998

:thumbsup:

-F

 

[rick1138]

I would like to add Nouredine Zetteli's book Quantum Mechanics to the list. It concentrates on the Dirac ket-bra formalism, moving effortlessly from abstract theory to worked problems. A great book.

 

[arivero]

In Spain we use a lot the local book, Quantum Mechanics by A. Galindo and P. Pascual (tr. english at springer verlag). Good when you enjoy rigour.

I am curious about the Greiner series. The editor presents it as the new "Landau".

Also, I think that our teachers were very fortunate of having the Bjorken-Drell series to go up the staircase beyond QM.

 

[vanesch]

Greiner...

I have the first 7 volumes (from QM to QCD) of Greiner, and I've read the first 3. My impression was quite disappointing: the approaches are very oldfashioned and do not give a lot of insight. However, what is good with this series is that _everything_ is worked out in a lot of detail (the phrase: "one can easily show that..." seems to be banned). I bought the first edition and unfortunately there are A LOT of typos in it, which makes the value of all the worked out calculations a bit less because they are often full of errors. However, I've heard that in the successive editions this has been corrected. Nevertheless, there where Landau is difficult but full of insight, Greiner is the opposite: dull, but full of detail concerning the calculations.

cheers,
patrick.

 

[von_biber]

My 2 cents:

1. very beginning: Feynmen's lectures vol. 3

2. Cohen-Tannoudji (detailed introduction to almost everything, most importantly to linear algebra and the postulates- but very light and lacks details, especially concerning group theory. Third chapter from this book is to be memorized and then you can proceed to another book if you like)

3. Landau & Lifshi.tz - the masters!

(there is a Russian book by Davidov but I am not fond of it, there is also Messiah but again, I don't recommend it).

 

[mhernan]

Text books - Feynman's 'Lectures' Vol. III chapter 5

Originally posted by RedX
Well I'm self-studying quantum mechanics with The Feynman Lectures in Physics, volume III. I think it's a good book, but it might be too easy for you if you're a physics student . . .

If you want an eye opener in quantum physics read chaspter 5, pages 5-9 to 5-10 (or read the whole chapter and see where RF makes a conscious effort to bamboozle the reader). Feynman makes the most atrocious error in equating the experimental results of experiment 5:15 with 5:17. In 5:15 there is a Stern-Gerlach trnasition where the upper and the lower channels are blocked, thereby allowing only a fraction of the particles through the middle channel as 0S particles - he is anticipating the 0S particles to enter the S segment following the T segment. In 5:17 he states that there is a real, positive amplitude for a similar finding where the unblocked T segment also allows a positive amplitude for 0S particles - yes, they all sum to zero!. If this is true, and it isn't, then RF is saying that the 0S channel always allows positive amplitudes where the remaining channels must add amplitudes of the other two channels to the negative of the 0S amplitude. Rubbish.

Blocked configurations can not un der any circumstances be equated with unblocked arrangements, it just isn't within the limits of allowed scientific integrity to do so as RF baltantly did.

RF earlier in the chapter makes it abundantly clear that a wide open T segment is the same as no segment at all, thereby saying the input state is identical to the output state. As the input state to the unblocked segment was a base state +S particle, this is also the exit state and this state always will take the upper, +S channel when transitioning through an S segment, whether it is blocked or not.

He cons you with his "here's that old interference amplitude" again.One doesn't need interfernece amplitude to analyze these experiments.

A proper analysis of this chapter cuts the supporting rope to the guillotine blade now racing to nape of the neck of quantum theory - clean, quick and a tad bloody, but effective..

He makes it a "gee golly", when he states that opening more channels in the wide open mode allows "fewer particles through". Not until a few paragraphs later does he slide the fact in that only for rhe 0S and -S channelc in the final S segment is this statement true - no particles get through these channels. However, many more particles are allowed through than is the case of the blocked arrangement. In fact all the particles entering the wide open T segment make it through the S segment when the +S channel is open. Remember, the open T segment does not change the state of the particle, ergo, it is to be expected that all particles will transit through the +S channel. Earlier in the chapter he makes it clear that this is what is occurring.

There is somthing pathological about quantum theory. Anyone taking QT at face value will ultimately need some serious deprogramming in order to regain mental stability. But, hey, all PhD candidates have graduate advisors to talk matters over with.

 

[TeV]

Originally posted by Dr Transport

If I had to choose, I'd take Messaih, dated as it is, you get a feeling for the structure of QM and how it is applied.

I'd second that.There are many good books on the subject but Albert Messiah's "Quantum Mechanics" is my favourite.
Highly recommended.Despite original first edition in 1961 ,it survived time challenge.Mine: 12th printing from 1991!

 

[JohnDubYa]

I find the most readable QM books to be authored by Michael Morrison, especially Understanding Quantum Physics. You can practically teach yourself the subject.

 

[Terry Giblin]

Gentlemen,

If you are looking for a book in Quantum Mechanics, you must first read a book, which took the subject of Quantum Mechanics and truly built the world in which we live. Physical Chemistry, based on the fundermental principles of Quantum Mechanics and Gravition in the real world with tests.

To study QM buy QM books, too truly understand Quantum Mechanics first read P.W. Atkins, Physical Chemistry.

And don't be afraid to ask,

"What is an electron?"

 

[JohnDubYa]

I liked Atkins, although the version I read had numerous typos. Very readable, but I didn't think his approach was all that unique. And the book chose breadth, rather than depth. So someone looking for a derivation or in-depth analysis would probably not like it.

But a good book, nonetheless.

 

[cragwolf]

I don't know if this would qualify as "best textbook for quantum mechanics" but I really liked David Bohm's book, Quantum Theory. It's dated, doesn't use the bra-ket notation, and eschews the axiomatic approach in favour of the historical apporach, but you will definitely learn a lot from it. Plus it's a cheap Dover book.

 

[Haelfix]

I'm going to vote for Griffiths as an undergrad text.

Note, first read the first 3 chapters of the Feynman's lecture for motivation. It doesn't matter if you don't get it all at first glance.

When you read Griffiths, you're going to think

'what, why do we need a hilbert space to do all this crap, what's wrong with x,y,z,t'... 'Who cares about orthornormal basis's for eigenvalues, what does that have to do with physics'.

And so on.

At that point, if you hit a stumbling block (even if you now know how to calculate things via griffiths formalism) conceptually, you can google around and get more answers, b/c now you are prepared to deal with the language people use, and things will start falling into place.

For more advanced treatments, the other books in this thread are good suggestions.

 

[einai]

Griffiths for undergrad and Sakurai for graduate.

 

[mhernan]

I don't know if this would qualify as "best textbook for quantum mechanics" but I really liked David Bohm's book, Quantum Theory. It's dated, doesn't use the bra-ket notation, and eschews the axiomatic approach in favour of the historical apporach, but you will definitely learn a lot from it. Plus it's a cheap Dover book.

I agree. . Also, it is interesting that within a year of publication D. Bohm did an about face and pubished his Implicate Order paper Phys. Rev 85, 165, 180 [1952].

 

[H-bar None]

I hadn't had QM yet but I've started to read A Primer of Quantum Mechanics, Dover Books by Marvin Chester. Forgive me, I may have gotten the title wrong.

The author jumps right into Dirac Notation, it seems a little simpler for me to understand. The problems were straightforward and solutions are in the back.

If you liked Feynmans Lectures you might want to check out What is Quantum Mechanics by LRF(Learning Research Foundation).

 

[SchrodingersCat]

I have found Griffiths to be rather good.

 

[arivero]

two ways to quantum field theory.

I am currently thinking tha there are two ways to learn QFT.

1) Aim to calculate high energy scattering theory
2) Aim to calculate the bound state splittings, ie Lamb shift.

The first way could be represented by Peskin-Shroeder. Second
path could be via unpublished Dyson lectures, then Sakurai
or other relativistic quantum mechanics plus perturbation theory.

And, it is me, or it happens that QFT is becoming fast a "lost art"? Phenomenologists do not need a great control over it, so poor manuals with a lor of formulae do the work. And string or any VHEP theorists (Very High Energy) use alternative theories beyond QFT.

 

[efaizi]

Griffiths and shankar are the best.

 

[Demystifier]

I prefer Ballentine.

 

[Demystifier]

I agree. . Also, it is interesting that within a year of publication D. Bohm did an about face and pubished his Implicate Order paper Phys. Rev 85, 165, 180 [1952].

This paper is not about Implicate Order. Implicate Order was written by Bohm much later, as a philosophy book inspired by this scientific 1952 paper.

 

[Pinu7]

1st book: Quantum Physics-Scheck or Modern Quantum Mechanics-Sakurai

2nd book(for theoretical physics): Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development-Ballentine

2nd book(for applied physics): Quantum Mechanics-Messiah

3rd book(for theoretical/mathematical physics): Quantum Mechanics for Mathematicians-Takhajan or An Introduction to the Mathematical Structure of Quantum Mechanics: A Short Course for Mathematicians -Strocci orLectures on Quantum Theory: Mathematical and Structural Foundations-Isham or Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics-Mackey and Geometric Quantization-Woodhouse

 

[iman rasti]

hi.I have been studing physics for 5 years in iran universities. and I have bought lots of Q.M books.
but I suppose the best book belongs to Dr Noureddin zettili for his "Quantum Mechanics. Concepts and Applications" book.
I really couldn't find any problem in the book.It is full of great examples , solved problems , & exercisses.and describes the topics fully.
in one word the book is excellent.